A Quick Tip by Count_Orlok_22

good points, Sean. I remember the same done with Secretariat, making a story where there should be none. I thought that was a decent film.

But that's exactly my point. If the origins of Facebook aren't dramatic enough, so much so that they have to exaggerate and invent conflicts in order to make it interesting, then the film shouldn't have been about Facebook. Sorkin and Fincher could have easily made this film with all of the same characters and events but not about Facebook. My point is that they used the phenomenon of Facebook for the sake of commercial visibility rather than telling the story accurately when instead they could have created a piece of fiction that acknowledged it was fiction and still told the same story that we ended up seeing on screen.

Agreed with both Aerin & Orlok.

Response to Orlok: I think for the most part, we cannot exactly complain as to why this and that...it is a movie to take advantage of a thread. I cannot fault the filmmakers on that. As I've said the movie was based on the book, which wasn't a good accurate depiction to begin with I would think. H-wood is a business, pure and simple. They can create things as long as it is can be creative, (this had good acting and direction as you've said, so this wasn't a loss. This and "secretariat" were fictional stories based on a true person/thing/event to inspire, so they made up something (honestly I would do the same thing if Iwas a producer). I don't think it is fair to criticize something when it wasn't meant to be fact anyway.

Now ask me what I think of Hollywood taking advantage of a real tragedy and then making up a story about it to make it more commercial. Now that is the true disgrace; not a movie such as this or "Secretariat".  This at least, was made up because of a certain person's/ thing's popularity not ignoring the real story to make a movie a money-maker.

Then can I make a movie about us and how we began writing reviews to get girls and piss off the film critic elite and only ended up with divergent ideas resulting in a multi-million dollar lawsuit? LOL!

Not to say, that I thought this movie was perfect, but I liked it enough because of the competency of the direction and the acting was good. The script was also good that it maintained its momentum.

Not to say, that I thought this movie was perfect, but I liked it enough because of the competency of the direction and the acting was good. The script was also good that it maintained its momentum.

sure we can write a movie about us as long as we approve it. We would make a good sitcom LOL!

we are characters after all. I'll play the villain. LOL!

Nice!

woopak the killer of stupidity and the defender of toe-sies LOL!

No, I think it would be a depressing ensemble drama about how tragically flawed online reviewers are in their attempts to reach out to their fellow lost souls through the ultimately redundant exercise of reviewing movies that nobody watches anyway. We could get Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu to direct it. LMAO!

that is an idea, I think the guy who did the WHITE RIBBON is also qualified LOL!. I would be interested how Michael Bay would make a movie about us, it'll probably turn out with: "I cannot gve that order, I cannot give that order!!" LMAO!

Or with a car chase with explosions or people hanging off a building with one of them yelling, "Let go, you have to let go or we both die."

Not ALL of the movie is entirely fake, but just the same Fincher and Sorkin were both pretty clear that the movie wasn't about Facebook so much as it was about the people behind and the unraveling of the friendship between Zuckerberg and Eduardo.  They were also incredibly upfront about much of it (nearly all of it) being fictional.  Sorkin especially.  That stuff was largely ignored, though because printing in the paper things like: "The Social Network portrays Mark Zuckerberg as an asshole," is a more attention grabbing story than, "This movie was mostly fiction," like Sorkin and Fincher tried to express. 

But every "true" story gets a little Hollywood treatment to make it more dramatic.  The recent film The King's Speech had historians in an uproar because they said it greatly exaggerated his stammering, for instance (it's also rumored Bertie's family didn't particularly like it much either--but that could be that, "How can we make this movie seem more interesting than it is?" deal going again).  It just does its high drama and all that jazz much better than The Social Network (although The King's Speech does receive some of that same flack).  That's typically what Hollywood does.  They're in the business of entertainment, after all.  So I don't mind that.  If I wanted to know about how Facebook was created I'd read one of the several thousand books published about it.  But Sorkin and Fincher were pretty big on explaining the movie was NOT about Facebook.  There was also a little inkling of how the culture had changed in there.  So I don't really think they were trying to capitalize on Facebook (remember when they first started talking about it everyone thought they were stupid and crazy because... you know, who wants to watch a movie about Facebook?) I just think David Fincher was rather fascinated with how Facebook really changed things for a lot of people.  If the movie were that much more about Facebook it could've gone a lot deeper in that regard.  The story on the creation of ANYTHING isn't that fascinating though, and as a film maker Fincher is pretty much going to do those things (he has the artistic credence to do so).  So the focus on character is still there, just not the way everyone thought he should've done it.  Hell, even at the very end we have to sit through a short scene where they try to explain that Zuckerberg ISN'T an asshole, but they all can't figure out why he's trying to be. 

But consider if they made a movie about the real Zuckerberg... no one would see it.  Because in reality he's just a very awkward and very boring individual.  They kind of had to spice that up, I think.  The movie would've been ridiculously boring otherwise.  It would've been like trying to make a movie about a cat who sleeps all damn day, coughs up a hairball and then immediately falls back to sleep.  So I actually rather liked The Social Network.  Not Fincher's best.  But I really thought the acting, directing and script were fairly decent.  The movie was better than I thought it would be as a result.  Especially considering what they had to work with.